Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Constitution of India – Article 226 – Quashing of FIR – Blanket interim orders of stay of investigation and/or “no coercive steps to be adopted” during pendency of quashing proceedings and/or u/Art.226 – Impermissibility of – Held: Police has the statutory right and duty to investigate into a cognizable offence – Save in exceptional cases, the Court should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences – When the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy, the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to arrest or “no coercive steps to be adopted” – FIR is not an encyclopaedia disclosing all facts and details of the offence – Therefore, when the investigation is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR – Police must be permitted to complete the investigation – Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice – Power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the ‘rarest of rare cases’ (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty) – Even in a case where the High Court is prima facie of the opinion that an exceptional case is made out for grant of interim stay of further investigation, it has to give brief reasons why such an order is warranted – In the present case, impugned interim order passed by the High Court directing “no coercive measures to be adopted” against the respondent nos. 2 to 4-accused, set aside – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.406, 420, 465, 468, 471, 120B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Constitution of India – Article 226 – Quashing petitions u/s.482 or Article 226 dismissed – Orders passed by High Courts of not to arrest during the pendency of the investigation – Held: Despite the law laid down by Supreme Court deprecating such orders, many High Courts are passing such orders – Law declared by Supreme Court is binding on all the High Courts – High Courts cautioned against passing such orders. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.340 r/w s.195 (1)(B) – Petition under, filed by respondent nos.2 to 4-accused alleging that the appellant suppressed vital agreements, facts and obtained interim order by Supreme Court which stayed the impugned order passed by High Court – Held: Interim order staying the impugned order was passed by giving reasons – Further, even if the documents/ agreements alleged to have been suppressed would have been there, it would not have any bearing on the interim order passed.